[0]: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...
Of course the official response is what you would expect:
“CBP officials declined, however, to answer questions about how many Americans’ phone records are in the database, how many searches have been run or how long the practice has gone on, saying it has made no additional statistics available “due to law enforcement sensitivities and national security implications.””
There’s nothing more American than spying on your own people and blaming it on terrorists.
When you give the people more freedom to protest, organise, mass communicate easily etc, you also have to add equal amounts of monitoring and restrictions to make sure that next movement to overthrow the government can't pick up speed without you catching it.
The entire point is being able to tell people what to do for your own profit.
It's a lot easier if you pretend you are doing it for the subject's benefit as it reduces the resistance to rule immensely. But you don't want to let that go too far or they start getting a big head and start thinking that paying you billions of dollars is optional.
Sorry, sorry, I’ve just been informed, the boogieman is no longer islamic terrorists. Now, it’s called radical white supremacist qanon Jan 6 anti vax conspiracy incel nationalist. My bad. I apologise.
But the curtailing of freedom will continue and the surveillance will increase. In order to safeguard our freedom and privacy, of course.
There couldn't be any actual reason for intelligence operations. "It is your politics showing".
Any such view is hopelessly ignorant and naive, yet it pops up here often.
The person to whom I'm replying is blatantly implying that it is nothing but a variety of illegitimate excuses that form a false justification for intelligence operations.
This is even more ignorant than usual, as none of those are the source of intelligence gathering, which predates all of them.
Yes, I'm familiar with COINTELPRO, a horde of illegal FBI operations, and many other excesses among the 17 intelligence agencies. I also note that these were ILLEGAL and shut down. I also note that intelligence has been twisted and abused by politicians, including bogh Bush presidents (Bush Sr. let exaggerated estimates of Soviet mil funding drive our mil funding, which did have the good result of collapsing the SU, and Jr abused intel to wrongly justify the Iraq invasion on WMD grounds).
I'm know enough to see that while the excesses and even abuses do matter a lot, they are not a justification for ending all intelligence, whether domestic or international. If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration.
Bruv …
Honestly I can’t tell if you’re for real or no. You already did that! California. People robbing stores in broad daylight, nothing happens to them. Chicago. Do I need to say anything about that third world enclave? Bloody hell man, chaz. A literal warlord took over!
What are you doing to yourselves? Snap out of it America!
It has already been tried, both the ages before govt, every time govt fell down, and in the case of San Francisco, just got way too lax.
The idea that we can somehow get away without governance (or intelligence ops, or policing) is born completely of very high privilege — it completely assumes that all the things that the govt does just happen automatically.
It is just like the idiot new manager who arrives and sees that the halls and offices are clean so fires the janitorial staff as excess cost or because they are inconvenient.
Of course there are overreaches and abuses of intelligence, and the very concept of policing and everything about it's training, practice, accountability, and results needs to be burnt to the ground and overhauled.
But that does NOT mean that we can get away without it. Because, as you noted, even a little time without it becomes a disaster.
The key is not to abandon intelligence. The key is to strengthen democracy, make sure that the institutions of democracy, lawmaking, executive, judicial, press, academia, industry, ngos, and individual people all have their own separate power base and independence.
In autocracies, all of these are bent to the service of the leader/oligarch.
In democracies, there are all kinds of visible flaws, but they tend to be self-correcting, because there is oversight and balance of power. That alone does not prevent overreach or abuses, but it does lead to them being eventually corrected.
As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others."
Edit: thank you for spelling correction. Wreaks changed to reeks
The point is that without a democratic government that is at least attempting to self-govern, the alternative is either a new autocracy comes in (see Russia, CCP, Venezuela, Myanmar, etc.), or it starts with anarchy, and quickly falls to the first crimelord/warlord.
Every one of those options is far worse than a flawed democracy.
Unless, of course, you can point me to the magical stable stateless advanced society where I can go live... (srsly, it'd be great)
And no, believing government acts on your behalf does not "wreaks of 'very high privilege.'". Aside from the fact that the word you want is "reeks" (as in smells bad, not inflicting punishment of vengeance), thinking that an attempt at democratic govt is less bad than being ruled by a crimelord, warlord, or fascist autocrat is not high privilege, it is simply a fact. Being able to live in such a democratic govt is, sadly, a bit of a privilege, as many are not so fortunate.
Is the US one?
I mean even anarchism could be considered 'flawed democracy.' The power is theoretically at the individual level, with the population of each government split down to a democracy of size '1' and the individual voting how to dictate his/her own life, although of course even that is flawed.
Then again, if you frame it as "flawed democracy" vs "everything worse than that" then almost by definition flawed democracy is going to win...
First of course is that the people elect their leaders and not the leaders selecting their "voters".
How independent are the various pillars of a functioning democracy? The Legislative, Judiciary, Executive, Press, Academia, Industry, Religions, NGOs, etc.? Are these institutions free to pursue their own course, or have they all been co-opted to serve the ends of an autocrat or oligarchy?
This all exists on a spectrum that can be measured. Hungary is, although nominally a democracy, tipping strongly to autocracy and is in danger of being expelled from the EU. OTOH, Iceland kicked out the bankers & politicians that caused the crisis a decade ago... Both nominally democracies, one strong, one weak. The US nearly fell to Hungary's fate, and still may, but things are trending better and a majority recognize that parts of one party are no longer a valid political party but are attempting to threaten democracy itself.
So, no it is not a self-defining tautology, but a characteristic that can be measured.
The US has not yet fallen, but is definitely under attack from within on two major fronts, one is masquerading as a political party, and the second was previously the greatest threat, which was corporate regulatory & legislative capture. Progress is being made against both.
I'd suggest reading a bit more about it with the Renew Democracy Initiative [0].
Where does policing end and national security begin?
Oh well, I'll buy a thin-blue-line flag for my lawn and sleep easy, trust the good-guys.
To fight these people you have to be some combination of powerful, morally spotless and willing to make great personal sacrifices - like Chelsea Manning.
But as a practical matter most people don't want to spend an extra hour or hours or even extra minutes going through a more detailed search for contraband or whatever else. Most don't want to, aren't ready for and/or can't afford having electronic devices held for days/weeks before getting them back. A lot of people simply don't know their rights. So without an explicit exemption a lot of Americans undoubtedly would submit "voluntarily".
So the ACLU isn't wrong (and their actual page is appropriately more nuanced [0]): Americans aren't "subject" in the legal sense to this, or to any other questions beyond what's needed to establish citizenship. Having done so they may politely insist on entry and refuse anything else, demand to see a supervisor if an agent persists in unconstitutional questioning, submit any property required while in response demanding receipts and pursuing complaints or legal action afterwards (or both), and at the end of the day the CBP must put up or shut up: let them through or arrest them, and for the latter will have to meet the legal standard and it'll all play out domestically. But at the same time the financial and other burdens this imposes are very real and serious.
Best practice would be to go as "clean" through the border as possible, preferably with a dedicated phone that only has minimum necessary travel and navigation data on it and nothing else, no logging into any personal accounts of any kind, no bookmarks or the like, and cheap enough to not care about losing it. Then one can just let border agents look through whatever as much as they'd like, or let them take it and just write it off. Not everyone can or knows to even consider that possibility though. And of course the vast majority never have a problem, so it's insurance against a "black swan event" for the average person (those who suspect they'll be subject to heightened scrutiny legally or not may already do this). It's valuable to note both the exact state of the law and when the practical effect is different.
----
0: ACLU: "If you are a U.S. citizen, you need only answer questions establishing your identity and citizenship, although refusing to answer routine questions about the nature and purpose of your travel could result in delay and/or further inspection." Or later "U.S. citizens have the right to enter the United States, so if you are a U.S. citizen and the officers’ questions become intrusive, you can decline to answer those questions, but you should be aware that doing so may result in delay and/or further inspection".
So the ACLU does acknowledge a practical cost to insisting on your rights, they aren't merely blindly saying "not subject".
But take the example of a person who has been issued a visa, looking to enter the US with the intent to immigrate legally, doing everything by the book. On their phone they likely have all the privileged communications with their immigration attorney - all the conversations about which visa strategy to pursue, etc. now they’re at the border, they can be pressured by an agent into handing that data over ‘voluntarily’. What protections does that person have as to how that information is used in respect of their future immigration application? Are they entitled to due process protections? Have they waived attorney client privilege? Once they later become a citizen, is that data still on file and searchable by DHS?
Or a green-card holding US resident, returning home from a business trip, with corporate data on their phone - can they refuse to hand it over, and risk being refused entry and heap or fixing their US residency? If they can’t, does that mean some employers might refuse to hire green card holders to mitigate such risks?
This data collection is egregious even when applied to noncitizens.
>And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do actually still have human rights
Certainly, but this sub-thread is specifically about Americans, so that's what I was sticking to. That said yes, non-citizens do not have any right of entry. However, that is the norm worldwide not the exception. There is no universal "human right" to enter any country except as a refugee or someone seeking asylum per ratified treaties or domestic law. The basic idea of a "sovereign nation" is somewhat bound up with the capability of border control and distinguishing the nation from the world. There are lots and lots of very reasonable disagreements on what said controls should be, what exceptions, and so on. But "completely open borders" is a fairly niche position. This at least isn't merely a US thing, I would exercise some level of caution for international travel anywhere on the planet when it comes to personal property and devices, or even just my own liberty. Different countries can have radically different legal regimes. If any of us are traveling somewhere we don't have any inherent legal right to be, then naturally there is some leverage there in terms of what conditions might be set for our entry.
>This data collection is egregious even when applied to noncitizens.
I do agree (and I think it's generally agreed upon in civil liberties circles) that the global increase in data collection, storage, and processing capabilities is not merely "worrisome" but prone to abuse and in fact actively abused. It's a bad thing. I'd personally go farther in that I lean towards the idea that a lot of modern electronic devices should be considered almost as "exo cortexes", extensions of our minds that should have the same kind of protection as the contents of our minds (and that protection should be total). This is another area where tech has raced ahead of societal reckoning.
As far as individual reactions though I'd say the same thing as for business secrets or whatever else: the best thing to do is to just not have it on you, have no ability to get it either, have other humans who know your travel plans and can check on you, know what rights you do have, where to make complaints, and most of all have fallbacks if things don't work out. That alone is very empowering. If some data is vitally important and private to the level you describe, perhaps stick it onto an encrypted image on a USB stick and mail it separately or something along those lines. Or via private online transfer of which there are many, but something completely out of band from your own physical person.
The danger at the border is that a person might be admitted who is not who they say they are, that they might bring with them some goods that shouldn't be brought in to the country, or that they might be planning to do something that exceeds the terms of their entry visa, or is otherwise undesirable. That last case is the tricky one, because it amounts to trying to detect a thoughtcrime.
Of course if you're trying to prevent thoughtcrimes, it would be useful to see into all of a person's relationships, private communications, and online activities. But we have to draw a line somewhere for what information it is acceptable for border agents to acquire to render their judgements. And even if we allow that accessing electronic devices at the border helps with that determination of 'intent' at the moment of entry, keeping all that data (not just the subset that was evaluated as relevant to the judgement) for years beyond that determination seems completely unnecessary.
And it's not necessary, because we all know that if you allow a border agent to search someone's phone, they can find a reason to prevent entry. But that's unnecessary, because a border agent can already deny entry for essentially any reason they like. There's no need to have access to a phone to generate pretext. But the difference between 'Access denied' with a note on the file to the effect that they thought the answers you gave to their questions were inadequate, versus 'access denied' with a complete copy of your digital identity attached to the file and a flag pointing at a set of facebook messages you exchanged a few years ago.... is pretty vast.
https://gizmodo.com/border-agent-demands-nasa-scientist-unlo...
The ACLU is not wrong, if you actually read their actual words. Your case doesn't say what you think it does. From your own article:
>Bikkannavar insisted that he wasn’t allowed to do that because the phone belonged to NASA’s JPL and he’s required to protect access. Agents insisted and he finally relented.
As far as the law is concerned, he voluntarily let them look at it. It doesn't matter if they "insisted", he could have told them to pound sand. They could have kept the phone, but in its locked state it presumably wouldn't be that useful, and particularly since it wasn't merely a personal device JPL's legal department then could have easily gone right after them for it and won. Just because we have the legal right to something doesn't mean there is some magic barrier preventing LEOs from attempting to violating them, or implying the right doesn't exist. They have to be defended by people exercising them and potentially going to court. The very next paragraph states:
>Hassan Shibly, chief executive director of CAIR Florida, tells The Verge that most people who are shown the form giving CBP authority to search their device believe that they have an obligation to help the agents. “They’re not obligated to unlock the phone,” she says.
Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". They may certainly ask that. You may choose to cooperate. But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no". If they arrest you they were almost certainly going to do so anyway but now they have less to go on and with more avenues to challenge it, and if they arrest you over exercising your rights you have a strong cause of action right there. CBP agents may well ask people this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't mean citizens must comply.
The rules exist for a reason. They also exist for people with guns; especially for people that do it on behalf of government. If you are afraid of guns from people in uniform, you are already doing it wrong. I will tell you this as an interesting little factoid.
In Israel guns are everywhere, but you are responsible for every single bullet.
And to all that cheer this one, because you happen to align with those values, remember that a tool is just a tool and can be used by anyone for anything.
Long time ago in country far away, we was traveling through a soon to be former Soviet satellite country. My brother got really sick. We were worried he would die. GPS does not exist yet. Foreign country. We miraculously stumbled upon a hospital. It happened to have armed guards. They blocked the entrance. My mom got pissed and started walking towards them with my brother in her arms. Rifle was raised, but guard ended flat on the floor as my mom pushed him out of the way. My dad followed with an embarrassed hand gestures that he hoped meant 'sorry, she is a little preoccupied now'. Nothing happened. Brother didn't die either. We drove forth.
How you handle yourself matters; doubly so in a time of actual crisis.
edit: Don't be an idiot rule applies. Sensible person will not storm armed guards just because you read a testimonial on the net.
<< no rule will help you.
What do you propose then, because I assure you the world without rules will not be a world people will want to exist in for long?
There is ample evidence in the US that fear of people in uniform carrying guns is a very rational thing.
If you are prepared for that then you absolute can and should tell them to pound sand. Just like you should to the police. But standing up for yourself has consequences you may not be prepared for. In both cases, CBP and police, you may be isolated from your loved ones, harassed, interrogated, etc in an attempt to make you crack. The difference, in a "border zone"[1] 100 miles from any border you effectively lose several important rights so the stakes are far, far higher. But, if you are truly innocent, it is worth the time to exercise your fourth and fifth amendment. As long as you present the correct paperwork the officer can't do much. However, they CAN lie. So it's imperative you know your rights to not talk yourself into probable cause.
I went through the border without a phone or anything of interest for them to search. They cuffed and shackled me, finger printed me, booked me, tossed me in a cell. Then held me for 16 hours while driving me to hospitals and told doctors there was drugs up my ass. Towards the end they got a warrant to cover their ass, where they woke a federal judge and and the US assistant attorney in the middle of the night and told them vicious lies that a dog had 'alerted' on my asshole and that during a (real) invasive strip search they found (fake) evidence of smuggling.
[note: am US citizen]
>That sounds great
How does having your property confiscated for days/weeks and being arrested sound "great" to you? It's not great, it stinks. For some people it could even be ruinous. But it's also legal reality. Every single "right" your or I or anyone has came out of blood. Lots of blood. Blood, sweat, tears, money, activism, power both soft and hard. The entire reason the ACLU exists at all is precisely that rights don't auto-enforce and must be defended, that's literally their raison d'etre. When they say US Citizens have an absolute legal right of entry but that exercising it may result in significant inconvenience or cost they aren't wrong. All of society as well as individuals need to work with that tailored to their own situations.
>but when a few power hungry workers with guns are breathing down your neck in a small room you can't get out of, the rules aren't going to make you feel 'safe'.
And? What does "feeling safe" have to do with this? And it's precisely because we're "in comfortable chairs" that it's the best time to go over our rights and consider ways to protect them both at the overall political level and individual level, rather then once we're in the hot seat. Preparation is worth a huge amount. If you know both your rights and the practical risks, you can do things like simply carry a minimal phone/computer, load and reload with a VPN at your destination. Make sure trusted contacts know all your travel plans and status. If you're carrying sensitive data for a corporation or government, check in with your legal department, HR etc. That's literally a core strength of a big organization, that they can have powerful specialists of their own vs leaving it all on their employees. At the political level, when was the last time you actually wrote your Senators and House Rep? If you're outraged and feel at risk, the bare minimum is telling them that. It adds up. Even if one gets a canned reply they absolutely pay attention to volume on an issue, and on a sliding scale. People who are angry enough to actually go to the trouble of writing or even calling are presumed to represent some number of people angry enough to maybe vote in opposition or stay home on election day but can't be bothered to write or don't know to.
That's nice? They can choose to try to do that, and in turn they may well get stepped on. There is a rest of the world out there, not just us as individuals. It doesn't always conform on its own to our wishes.
>That's the entire goal of having a society.
"Society" isn't magic that just happens on its own. It's made up of its people and their actions. If enough of its people don't actually take action, then "society" is going to reflect that too. Society creates more slack and wiggle room, and collective action can help shield individuals. You see that right here, society and law is why there is even an absolute right to return, why someone cannot simply be jailed indefinitely on a whim, etc, which in turn are foundational in making it much less costly to try to work for more. But if you merely want to free ride, well, it may or may not work out.
This is not only a very naive take, its a dangerous one - people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. Law Enforcement Officers in the US has what is known as qualified immunity. In practice qualified immunity means as long as the LEO says they believed they were following rules (even if they were not), then they can do anything they want to you (including kill you) with little to no personal consequences.
In other words, you can say "No officer, you can't look around without a warrant", to which they can say "I see an object that may be a gun, and you're moving your hand in the direction of your pocket. Stop. I'm afraid for my life, I need to break your car windows and throw you on the street"
It's common enough that a LEO can publicly and slowly strangle George Floyd on the street, recorded and in front of others, and the only notable/unusual aspect is that the police officer was convicted of a crime.
Your rights don't mean shit to cops.
Can you cite any examples of this happening? I’m a pretty big policing reform person and follow this stuff closely and can’t think of a single case like this.
I’m not here to defend policing as it stands in the US or dismiss any wrongful killing. I just disagree with a particular narrow assertion.
No, you weren't. You asked:
"Can you cite any examples of *this* happening? I’m a pretty big policing reform person and follow this stuff closely and can’t think of a single case *like this*." [Emphasis added]
The semantics of that question turn entirely on the antecedent of "this", which is pretty ambiguous in this (!) context.
So I'll revise my criticism of your original remark: you need to be clearer about the scope of what you are asking about. Personally, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to extrapolate the circumstances of the GF case to the potential for the same thing to happen during a border search, but I suppose reasonable people could disagree.
>>> you also may say "no"
>> people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting.
> Can you cite any examples of this happening?
and not George Floyd.
> Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no"
and it becomes a lot less clear.
[1] https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2014/02/how-your-memor...
Let's trace this back to the beginning (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32866019):
This is /u/xoa quoting from TFA:
> Hassan Shibly, chief executive director of CAIR Florida, tells The Verge that most people who are shown the form giving CBP authority to search their device believe that they have an obligation to help the agents. “They’re not obligated to unlock the phone,” she says.
Which he follows up with:
> Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". They may certainly ask that. You may choose to cooperate. But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no". If they arrest you they were almost certainly going to do so anyway but now they have less to go on and with more avenues to challenge it, and if they arrest you over exercising your rights you have a strong cause of action right there. CBP agents may well ask people this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't mean citizens must comply.
Note that the scope of the discussion has been broadened here. /u/xoa is comparing phone searches at border stops to 'police officer[s] who [ask] if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions"'. And it's pretty clear that this list of police actions is not meant to be exhaustive, just illustrative. There are other unspecified things that an officer could do or say that would be within the scope of what /u/xoa is talking about.
So at this point in the conversation the scope is both broad and ambiguous.
The next step is /u/xnyan quoting /u/xoa:
> Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no"
and following up with:
> This is not only a very naive take, its a dangerous one - people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. Law Enforcement Officers in the US has what is known as qualified immunity. In practice qualified immunity means as long as the LEO says they believed they were following rules (even if they were not), then they can do anything they want to you (including kill you) with little to no personal consequences.
> In other words, you can say "No officer, you can't look around without a warrant", to which they can say "I see an object that may be a gun, and you're moving your hand in the direction of your pocket. Stop. I'm afraid for my life, I need to break your car windows and throw you on the street"
The scope of the discussion has now been broadened yet again. And again, the specific details of the hypothetical scenario described by /u/xnyan are obviously intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. An officer could say different words under different circumstances and still be within the scope of what /u/xnyan is talking about. And again, the full extent of the scope is ambiguous because /u/xnyan has not said how far he intended his example to be extrapolated.
But the next thing that /u/xnyan does is give an example of what he is talking about in order to support the point he is trying to make:
> It's common enough that a LEO can publicly and slowly strangle George Floyd on the street, recorded and in front of others, and the only notable/unusual aspect is that the police officer was convicted of a crime.
And finally:
> Your rights don't mean shit to cops.
All this allows us to infer that /u/xnyan intended the scope of his comment to be very broad indeed. He is basically saying that the police in the U.S. can, if they choose, do anything they want to you at any time under any circumstances, up to and including taking your life, and there is nothing you can do about it.
This is the point at which you asked:
> > people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting.
> Can you cite any examples of this happening?
Well, yes, he can. And he did.
I understand that it was not your intention to ask about the "unrelated" example, but in context, that is the most reasonable interpretation of the words that you actually wrote because you didn't say what you meant by "this". In the absence of clarification, the antecedent for "this" in English is usually the most recent reasonable reference, which is to say, the circumstances being described by /u/xnyan in the comment you were responding to, which were very broad, and which included an example as part of the description.
>> people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting.
> Can you cite any examples of this happening? I’m a pretty big policing reform person and follow this stuff closely and can’t think of a single case like this.
And at this point, you decided to react with snark. Here's why that was wrong:
1. George Floyd is an example of what happened to George Floyd, so why would he ask for an example of what happened to George Floyd? Is that arguing in good faith?
2. Did you honestly think a "pretty big policing reform person" wouldn't be aware of George Floyd? This is why his question was clear to everyone.
3. George Floyd's case was actually irrelevant to the thrust of the discussion, which was the perils of refusing to allow a search of property at a border.
It seemed improbable, but profound ignorance is not exactly unheard of on the internet.
In any case, it seemed manifestly true that /u/ch4s3 had either not seen or chosen to ignore the example that /u/xnyan provided because he didn't refer to it at all. "Can you provide an example?" is what you say when you think no example has been provided. It is not what you say when you are aware that an example has been provided but you think the example is deficient. What you say in that case is something like: "The example you provided is deficient because... Can you provide a better one?"
> Here's why that was wrong:
Here is why you are wrong: if you give someone an example and they respond by saying "Can you give me an example?" you should not be surprised when you leave your interlocutor somewhat nonplussed, and you should be equally unsurprised when they, being human, respond with a certain amount of frustration at your inability to communicate your intentions more clearly. It's like if you gave a homeless person a pizza and they respond by saying, "Can you give me a pizza?" Dude, I just gave you a pizza, what more do you want? Oh, this is a ham-and-pineapple pizza. I wanted pepperoni! If you think a snarky response is inappropriate in a situation like that, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
Alice: "Statement A. Example A. Statement B."
Bob: "Can you give me an example?"
You: "She just gave you example A!!!!"
Everyone else: "Bob must be asking for example B."
People don't ask for examples of proper nouns.
This is why fluent English speakers understood clearly that he wasn't asking for an example of George Floyd, and therefore was asking for an example of something else, an example that had not been provided.
To be perfectly clear I do not think qualified immunity should exist and that courts are too quick to rubber stamp warrants. Also most non-violent crimes shouldn’t be crimes IMO. That said, in many year of following the topic I don’t know of anyone being killed while refusing a search in a Terry Stop or an officer requesting entry to a home. Most police killings conform to a few narrow sets of common circumstances, that deserve a LOT of scrutiny but never seem to involve a warrantless search.
I live in Mexico and even I know about the Floyd case ... it seems you don't really follow that kind of thing at all.
2. The citizen asserted his rights.
3. The citizen was shot and killed.
I imagine you are splitting hairs on 2, (mentioning you have a CC handgun, vs telling an officer they can't have your phone), but both are Rights and one person died trying to exercise them (i.e., Your rights don't mean shit to cops).
I also agree that Castile was murdered by a cop, I just don't think it's splitting hairs to distinguish between a warrantless search and seizure vs a traffic stop where a handgun is in play. Both involve violations of rights, but different rights and in circumstances which are operationally different if that makes sense.
If you think you’re immune just because you’re a US citizen, you’re not.
Worst day of Google Mapping ever.
A friend came back to the US after 3 years. A time period you typically lose your green card.
However friend was smart to ask a lawyer and the lawyer said “agree to nothing, sign nothing, only a judge can take your green card”.
So she did just that. Put up with about an hour of shit. “No, im not signing anything”, “No, I don’t agree that I’m no longer a permanent resident of the US”.
Was eventually let in and nothing came of it.
Know your rights and stand firm. If some non-us citizen minority woman can do it, I’m sure you can too.
I'm quite certain if she had dealt with some of the agents I dealt with they simply would have lied or signed the form for her and kicked her out of the country. If they would have simply taken the green card from her and said "good fuckin luck" it would have been a hell of a road getting it back after being gone 3 years. Either way good on her for calling the bluff.
Growing up in a family that came to this country, you're very disabused of the notion these agents have much power.
For most of them it's a power trip. Once you understand that, you will figure out what to say.
You have to understand that they know they're lying to you but it makes them feel powerful. Play into it. Let them feel the rush of power but remain firm in your goals.
I know in developing countries, the cops are nothing more than opportunist thugs. I have friends who tell them to just "fuck off" regularly. Then they come to the US with the same attitude, and while true US cops have limited powers, the "fuck off" approach often doesn't go over as well as politely refusing and stating your rights.
Course it makes not much difference now. I'm on CBP's watch-list or some shit so I'm in for the 16+ hour shit-show, fraudulent warrants, with HSI detectives and the works everytime anyways. Even the seemingly nice agents see it on the computer and say "you know the drill" and send me into the bad-boy room.
My fellow Americans are very afraid of their own government for some reason. The us government is filled with a bunch of cowards.
Or they won't. And they'll lie to a judge, and they'll lie to a doctor, and they'll lie to the assistant US attorney. They'll create an insane and false chain of probable cause to accuse you of having drugs up your ass. You'll be taken (while cuffed, and chained to a van) to MULTIPLE hospitals against your will and be seen without your permission (without an arrest, without a warrant, and without a court order, and without any psych hold), each of which sends you a multi-thousand dollar bill. You'll wonder when the lawsuit will end up getting served for the medical bills for a medical condition you never had that the agents made up. You will complain to the state medical/nursing board, and they'll tell you nurses can search and perform 'care' on you without a warrant, probable cause, any emergency, consent, an arrest, nor a court order -- and DHS will exploit this loophole to violate what few 4th amendment rights you do have at the border. The DHS agents will smile inside knowing they can weaponize the high cost of fake medical complains while under your detention to rack up debt in your name.
Later you contact an attorney, and find out the agents have qualified immunity, that suing is a financial black hole that you probably cannot afford, and that your best chance is to be some incredibly sympathetic mother-teresa kind of character that are one of the one per 10,000 or whatever ACLU takes up for a cause.
These are not theoretical. This is what they've done to me, and more.
How about instead of this handwave-y impossible ask BS you cite any actual cases at all since Lyttle v. US (10 years ago) where the CBP denied a US Citizen entry or deported them? There is plenty of case law here. In Nguyen v. INS the Supreme Court stated that (emphasis added) "[...]a citizen entitled as of birth to the full protection of the United States, to the absolute right to enter its borders, and to full participation in the political process." And that's not even tied to a passport. In Worthy v. US the 5th Circuit found the government could not impose a penalty on returning without a passport: "We think it is inherent in the concept of citizenship that the citizen, when absent from the country to which he owes allegiance, has a right to return, again to set foot on its soil. . . . We do not think that a citizen, absent from his country, can have his fundamental right to have free ingress thereto subject to a criminal penalty if he does not have a passport."
Lower courts have since cited all this, even when the practical result was a mixed bag or a loss for the plaintiff. Fikre v. FBI was about the no-fly list, and the court didn't hold that the absolute right to return meant the US couldn't prevent getting on an airplane in another country, and that Fikre hadn't asserted enough facts to support that the No-Fly list and boarding denial were enough to violate his right to get to a port of entry a different way. I think that's unfortunate, saying essentially "well take a boat or figure out a flight to Canada/Mexico" isn't ok and I think the whole no-fly list is flagrantly bad, but the court did uphold a citizen's right to enter borders on getting to them.
Finally in Lyttle v. US [0] there was indeed a case where a US citizen with mental challenges was detained by ICE and deported, after being allegedly coerced into signing a document falsely stating he was Mexican citizen. This set off a saga that eventually resulted in the DHS terminating deportation efforts "on the basis that “it was determined that [Lyttle] was not a Mexican citizen and is, in fact, a citizen of the United States.”" The court refused to dismiss all damages claims, and at all times ICE/CBP proceeded on the basis of fraud that he in fact wasn't a US citizen. Court found that the government is simply not authorized to detain or deport US citizens, and thus may not ignore any credible assertion of citizenship.
So again, if you have a newer example to share where someone was denied entry at all, let alone "with very little recourse", you share it. Otherwise you're just posting FUD.
----
That's a pretty big claim, do you have a particular example in mind? You might have your phone seized, sure, but denying a citizen entry to the country? Even CBP understands they can't do that and it would make the evening news if they did it.
Canada denies entry to tons of Americans. Americans with a DUI on their record have trouble visiting Canada.
If you are a citizen of the United States of America, and you are returning to the United States from a foreign country, Customs and Border Patrol are not allowed to deny you entry to the United States of America.
Of course the caveats - if you, as the citizen, have an outstanding warrant, they can arrest you. They can take your electronics. They can delay you. They can put you in a room by yourself for some period of time. But they can’t deny you entry without some kind of legal reason. They can’t hold you indefinitely.
It just comes down to how much the citizen is willing to be inconvenienced.
And I believe any American with any felony on their record will have trouble visiting Canada. I once traveled with a guy who had a felony assault conviction from a college bar fight 15 years prior. They wouldn’t let him in.
But they will lie to you and tell you they won't let you in.
They will also lie to you and tell you they have the power to cancel your passport.
I've had them pull both 'tricks' on me. Not a lot of people are well versed on their rights and without access to a lawyer it would be easy to believe a federal officer when they tell you these things. If you believe what a federal officer tells you, which is probably most Americans, being told you won't be let in unless you do X is going to be taken literally as 'unless I do X, I am denied entry to the country.' They will simply comply on the basis of a fraudulent lie, which I might add a material lie like this is a felony if a normal citizen says it to a federal agent.
Once they tried to hold me up because my wife had two drivers licenses. We were just married and she had an old invalidated license with her old name.
I explained the situation and he thought it was suspicious so I asked him if he was suspicious because I was brown really loudly and he then let us through.
I don't understand all these people who cow down to everything.
My family, due to being immigrants, have been in many fights with cbp, ice, ins. Like all government bureaucracies they are filled with power hungry people. Knowing your rights and politely but firmly insisting upon them will rarely land you into trouble.
It's the politeness and insistence most people have trouble with. But honestly even my high tempered dad did not have any trouble growing up.
This is a major flaw in our system, and desperately needs legal reform. LEOs should only be allowed to ask people to do things that they can be legally compelled to do. Acting outside of that authority to coerce other actions should be charged equivalent to impersonating a police officer, kidnapping, or logically similar - the same as if a non-police dressed up in a police costume to coerce someone.
This is of course in addition to the need to make longstanding laws like the ones against murder apply to LEOs as well.
Not that I expect much to ever change. I've got to wonder what our society would be like if Hollywood hadn't leaned into "police procedural" for its cheap production cost. How many hours per week does the average American watch people pointing guns at one another and barking orders? It nowhere reflects real life, yet we've all been primed to think that's how the world operates.
I've heard of "border" being applied to anywhere 100 miles from an _airport_, but can't find the reference, which would cover like 99% of the country.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/10/22276183/us-appeals-court...
"The court held that the government’s policy, described above, does not violate the Constitution. Border officers can continue to perform advanced searches without a warrant or probable cause and can perform basic searches without reasonable suspicion that there may be a violation of law or a national security concern."